[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Unimpressed with Ted Koppel program conclusion for following reasons:
1- Ted Koppel did not visit Kazemi grave and did not mention anything about her. This is the best test case for honesty level of a journalist traveling to Iran and whether the Journalist has high code of ethics or not. As Ted Koppel is fully aware, Ms. Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, was arrested on June 23, 2003 and was savagely and barbarically beaten to death by Islamic regime officials. News agencies reported that Ms. Kazemi's body was buried on July 23, 2003, in Shiraz, Iran, contrary to the wishes of her family (for other detailed facts regarding the case please click on http://www.activistchat.com/reporter/index.html ).
2- Mostly interviewed with former or current Islamic Fascists Terrorist occupiers of Iran.
3- Akbar Gangi is not considered real dissident because for many years served Islamic Fascist regime.
4- Did not cover Human Rights abuses ...
5- The purpose of this program was to prepare American public for stupid strategy of direct talk with Islamic Fascists to discredit US stand against war on terror and support for liberty and freedom.....
6- Ted Koppel had hidden agenda....

Talk of the Nation, November 16, 2006 · Broadcaster Ted Koppel talks about his new two-hour documentary on the relationship between Iran and the West. Iran: the Most Dangerous Nation examines terrorism, politics, women's rights, religion and history, and gives a variety of Iranians an opportunity to speak.

Clips from the Documentary
Former Iranian POW on Iranian Martyrdom in the Iran-Iraq War
Three Views on Iran's Future

Enlarge Newsha Tavakolian/Polaris
Koppel in front of the former U.S. Embassy Wall in Tehran.

More on the Documentary
You can find more information about the documentary, which premieres on Sunday, Nov. 19 at 8 p.m. ET/PT, at the Discovery Channel Web site.

Enlarge Newsha Tavakolian/Polaris
Village elder Jaafar Hosseini with workers near a rice field outside of Isfahan, Iran.

In the midst of the international crisis over Iran's nuclear program, journalist Ted Koppel spent three weeks speaking with people around that country.

In his documentary, Iran -- The Most Dangerous Nation, Koppel reports on how Iranians view the policies of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and what lies at the root of decades of deep-rooted distrust between Iran and the United States.

Koppel's reporting experience with Iran stretches back to 1974; most famously, he covered the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in 1979.

Today, he characterizes the U.S.-Iranian relationship as "tit for tat, grievance for grievance."

For example, while the United States criticizes Iranian support for terrorist organization such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Iranians talk about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Koppel notes: "What horrifies U.S. policy makers is the prospect of Iran armed with nuclear weapons. What if they used them against the Israelis, or just gave them to their Hezbollah surrogates in Lebanon."

In the new Discovery Channel documentary, Koppel travels to the border of Iran's border with Iraq, the ancient capital of Isfahan, the holy city of Qom and the Persian Gulf.

He talks to Iranians from all walks of life -- businessmen, dissidents, former government officials and ordinary citizens -- to hear their thoughts on their country's leaders, nuclear ambitions and relations with the rest of the world.
__________________________________________________

No one erected a banner that said "Welcome Back, Ted," but there is a certain historical resonance in Ted Koppel's return to Iran for a new Discovery Channel documentary. That's because, of course, Koppel's nightly reports on the Iranian hostage crisis for ABC evolved into "Nightline" and made Koppel a household name, face and presence back in the days when a mere four networks ruled the airwaves.

Now a network expatriate, Koppel is able to do on cable what no broadcast network would likely permit: take two hours of airtime to examine a subject thoroughly and imaginatively -- exactly what he does in "Koppel on Discovery: Iran -- the Most Dangerous Nation," a surprisingly lively report airing tomorrow night at 9. Koppel spent three weeks traveling around Iran, and though shadowed by government flunkies everywhere he went, appears to have enjoyed unusual freedom and access.

Ted Koppel outside a mosque in Iran, from which he reports for the Discovery Channel. Koppel appears to have been given unusual access while in Iran. (By Newsha Tavakolian -- Polaris Via Discovery Channel)

Tom Shales
The Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning critic reviews shows with wit, humor and a quick finger on the remote.

TV Preview: In 'Iran,' Ted Koppel Explores the Nation Behind the Label
'30 Rock,' Solid Enough to Rebuild a Thursday Foundation
TV Previews: 'Day Break': It's Noir at 6:17 In the Morning
TV Preview: '3 Lbs.': A Little 'Grey' Matter But Not a Lot Of Smarts
A Few Leaders Emerge in TV Coverage
More Columns

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

The "most dangerous nation" tag was hung on Iran by George W. Bush in light of the Iranian government's apparent insistence on developing nuclear power and the possibility that doing so would lead to nuclear weaponry. But Koppel's report shows the country beset by so many internal problems and generational conflicts that building weapons of mass destruction might, by default, have a low priority -- and that's assuming the Iranians have the capability in the first place.

Koppel traces the history of U.S.-Iran relations, and it's anything but a happy little tale. Enmity toward the United States goes back at least to the 1950s when the CIA installed the shah of Iran for a 25-year regime known for fabulous parties here in Washington and human rights abuses back home. Koppel visits the crumbling remains of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, seized by shrieking mobs in 1979.

"This is a nation that relishes the role of underdog," Koppel says, "and cultivates the image of martyrdom." He even finds a spot in a public square where young men can sign up for what amounts to suicide training; the sign above a long table says "Martyrdom Seekers Registration."

Koppel says that 70 percent of the population is under 30, a new generation that, among other things, is trying to challenge the long-entrenched and fanatical suppression of women in Iranian society (they are required to ride in segregated subway cars, as one tiny sign of the pathology). Meanwhile, the country is run by old men with billowing beards, several of whom look like the Ayatollah Khomeini, a demagogue who helped foment hatred of the U.S. during his own notorious and tumultuous reign.

The report is first-rate and often fascinating, as when Koppel tracks down "Sister Mary," the woman who served as Iran's spokesperson during the hostage crisis. Feisty as ever, Koppel challenges her to defend the characterization of America as "the great Satan." But Sister Mary is feisty, too.

"Death to America" has now become an expression so common in the culture that it's practically the Iranian equivalent of "Have a nice day." It's always discouraging to see children being indoctrinated in the hatreds of their fathers, but sure enough, the report includes footage of sweet-faced young kids rhythmically raising fists as they repeat the "Death to America" chant. Anti-American posters are everywhere; one shows the Statue of Liberty with a hideous skull for a head, and another, less infuriating, says succinctly, "Bush = Hyena."

Koppel's on-camera presence is more Yoda-like than ever, both in appearance and in the aura of authority that he carries with him wherever he goes. He does actually meet an Iranian or two who likes America and a young man who sends greetings rather than a death threat to President Bush. But when he listens to a crowd of men chanting their evening prayers, he's dismayed to hear "Death to America" interpolated into even supposedly sacred rites.

Perhaps Koppel is a trifle too colloquial in his reporting style, saying of young aspiring martyrs, "These guys will die for their beliefs." If "these guys" is a little too informal, it hardly mars "Most Dangerous Nation," which was produced, as was the Koppel version of "Nightline," by the estimable Tom Bettag.

Meanwhile, another longtime and legendary anchor, one who also worked with Bettag during his network career, made his return to American television this week, though in a vehicle not as soundly assembled as Koppel's show. "Dan Rather Reports," helmed by the former anchor of the now-sinking "CBS Evening News," premiered Wednesday night on HDNet, one of media magnate Mark Cuban's high-definition networks.

Although the Rather hour contained some solid and absorbing journalism, the program lacked structure and cohesion and seemed chronically under-produced. Having Rather report all the stories himself, with no other journalists in sight, amounted to overexposure, and there were "cutaway" (reaction) shots of Rather in which he looked, justifiably, exhausted.

Still, it was good to see him on TV again -- if you could find him. Very suspiciously, the DirecTV satellite guide for that night's viewing did not list Rather's program at 8, when it aired. Instead, the grid said "Title Not Available," which very rarely happens. DirecTV is now controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., so it's hardly being paranoid to wonder if this "mistake" weren't made on purpose.

Years and years ago, when pugnacious personality Jack Paar attacked the Hearst newspapers on "The Tonight Show," Hearst retaliated by running the word "Commercials" in TV listings where "Tonight Show" or "Jack Paar" should have been. Perhaps TV hasn't changed as much as one would think -- or as much as it should have.

Koppel on Discovery: Iran -- the Most Dangerous Nation (two hours) airs tonight at 9 on the Discovery Channel.

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

Mr. Ted Koppel’s EMBARASSING Show About Iran
By Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

Hi Everyone,

I just had the miserable experience of sitting through Mr. Ted Koppel’s EMBARASSING show about Iran . Basically, all I can say is that if anything, no more than 25% of that show was true. He had interviewed nothing but THE biggest liars, ideologues and corrupt individuals around. From Massoumeh Ebtekar, who is one of the women, members of the Khatami cabinet who in fact was one of the main hostage-takers, a brutal and vicious woman…to Ebrahim Yazdi, one of the conceptualizers of the Khomeinist revolution, a charlatan, a pompous revisionist and master propagandist who has managed to launder his reputation to look presentable for the credulous members of the western press – like Mr. Kopple - but his hands are STILL covered in the blood of many thousands of Iranians who were slaughtered in the name of Khomeini. It is quite unbelievable that it was Mr. Kopple himself whose show Niteline started as a result of the hostage crisis and who knew the reputation of both these individuals as he reported night after night about the Islamic revolution…and yet he sat there and legitimized these villains.

Mr. Koppel, basically passed off everyone from a Hezbollah leader to some of the corruptest Mullahs as nice enough guys with possibly good reasons for being SO “irate”. He NEVER once mentioned anything about the thousands of political prisoners in Iran under torture, the millions of hungry workers, the gangland style wars between the various Mullah factions, the kidnapping of activists, bloggers, labor leaders, intellectuals…the execution of teenagers and the robbing of the youth of Iran from higher education because of their anti-regime activities….among the hundreds of other counts of inhumanity that this regime has committed against the brave people of Iran and is looking to perpatrate against the world.

In the name of so-called dissidents, he interviewed Akbar Ganji who we all know is a window-dressing facsimile of a political prisoner and basically in total service of the regime.

ALL IN ALL folks, Mr. Koppel told the American people that the Mullahs may be reasonable yet complicated people and never once blinked to say, after he had left Iran - and was doing his voice over for his show - that the people of Iran are all prisoners of a bunch of Islamo-imperialists who have ripped them off in order to take revenge on humanity.

Something larger is at works in Washington than a simple changing of the congressional guards. Republicans who had forgotten the primary tenets of republicanism were for two years feebly unwilling to pass legislation which the majority of the public eagerly endorsed. In the tug-of-war struggle between lobbyists and constituencies, they balked, chose the former, angered the latter, and for that will pay the price of losing the House and Senate. But representatives come and go every twenty-four months with midterm cycles. Domestically, changes are frequent and commonplace; they are to be expected, and even in losing graciously, to be welcomed.

That civility in defeat must stop at the water's edge.

Overseers of American foreign policy have both applauded and chastised the bold detraction of doctrine we have witnessed during the Bush II administration. Much has been written about the infighting over the grand ideas which were designed to steer the United States, and the world for that matter, in this strange age of terror. Both within the intelligentsia and amongst the practitioners in the field, many faces have come and gone. Seasoned generals which brought us the quick takedowns in Afghanistan and Iraq - Tommy Franks, Richard Myers, Mike DeLong, Jim Mattis - have either been replaced or overshadowed by the likes of John Abizaid, Peter Pace, George Casey, James Conway, and others who now bear the responsibility of solidifying earlier tactical victories into long-term strategic triumphs. Our proconsul Paul Bremer has been replaced with the keen Muslim ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Colin Powell and his power-lifting top aide Richard Armitage have handed control of the State Department over to Condi Rice. Paul Wolfowitz resigned at the Pentagon and took the reigns at the World Bank.

But no change in personnel will have as much significance on policy than the resignation of Don Rumsfeld. Along with Vice President Cheney - who is considered by many to be amongst the most influential ever to hold the position - Rumsfeld was as dominant a force as there was inside the administration; some would say for the better, some would be inclined to say for the worse. We have not seen a Pentagon chief quite like him since the National Defense Act of 1947. His retirement would not be particularly surprising - no defense boss has ever stayed on for two successive presidential terms - if it were not for the record of his replacement, former CIA Director Bob Gates.

Policy will still undoubtedly be made by President Bush, but we should take note of his hiring of Bob Gates - as well as his recent mingling with former associates of his father and his talks with the Iraq Study Group (of which Dr. Gates was once a part). The theme from the administration has remained startlingly consistent - a fight against evil, ideological struggle, generational challenge, freedom verses fascism, etc. - but a supporter of democratizing the Mideast subcontinent suddenly has reason to begin becoming unnerved. The recent ascendancy of the so-called realists within the Bush camp is not something to disregard. News comes out that Henry Kissinger is advising Mr. Bush on Iraq. One must wonder if the doctor and honorary Harlem Globetrotter reminisces about his days aligning with autocrat and junta alike - and if he offers this as an alternative to an elected Iraqi parliament. Secretary Rice wonders out loud if a theocratic Hamas regime is preferable to their ganglia's violent street antics prior to coming to power. Perhaps all jihadist organizations should ascertain control of their respective states? It would, after all, be easier to make a deal with an omnipresent sultan ruling the domineering caliphate than with a cave-hopping Mullah Omar, would it not?

This seems to be a fantastic time to jump ship. Francis Fukuyama has conceded history has not in fact ended, and subsequently retracted his support for a war he once encouraged. George Will has withdrawn his advocacy. Iraqi dissident Ahmed Chalabi blames the former Coalition Provisional Authority (with a large degree of accuracy, one could say). A recent piece, slyly entitled Neo Culpa, goes over in detail how the neoconservatives who once advocated regime change in Iraq are now having second thoughts. (All of those interviewed, particularly Richard Perle, claim their views and words were misconstrued by Vanity Fair.)

The primary threat to our noblesse oblige in supporting Muslim democrats and Arab reformers in the Mideast is not a resurgent Democratic fever or Congress falling under the sway of the other party. No, the true menace rests not within the leftist and pacifist factions - who have not, and will continue not to, offer any worthwhile alternative - but within the isolationist and stability-seeking conservative camp, which advocate a return to our previous realpolitik of the Cold War. Liberal objections to the Iraqi war were dominant in the prewar period: no blood for oil, we'd install a puppet, we would easily crush a helpless opponent, and the like. But as the postbellum period of the war became more difficult, intricate, and idealistic - let us not forget the current hardships in the Afghan theater, as well - it was the likes of Colin Powell, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, and their former deputies and subordinates (read, Bob Gates) who came across as the sober pragmatists uneager to enter the Pottery Barn for fear of breaking something. It is precisely this strange psychosis which brought us the conditions where Islamist fanaticism would seem like an attractive alternative to autocracy for millions of oppressed Arab youths across Southwest Asia and North Africa.

For this and more, I think it must be stated that those who support democratic revolutionaries in Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, and Baghdad are not the only ones who have any explaining to do. The moment we begin to abide by the colossally amoral wisdom of an "Anonymous" or a James Baker, it begins to slip our mind that our enemies are not utopian universalists but primordial fascists which blame all societal ills on Western classical liberalism. Sheikh Taj Aldin al Hilali is not just resistant to our policies, but contends all uncovered women are akin to uncovered meat; alas, when the cats eat the meat - when an Islamic male rapes an uncovered Islamic female - "who is really to blame in the first place?"

Their grievances rest not only with our preponderance to support a liberal Israel or topple an autocratic Hussein, but with human rights activists that challenge the theology behind clitoris mutilation. They have particular contempt for emancipated women, Jews, the European operagoer, Russian schoolchildren, Wall Street businessmen, the artist, the tasteless Dutch novelist or cartoonist, and the secularist intellectual.

Michael Rubin has diagnosed this situation accurately: liberal progressives have abandoned progress and conservative realists are ignoring reality. We would do ourselves a great service if we remain wary of those - Baker, Scowcroft, etc. - who overlook the inherent nature of the Wahhabi fatalist and the Khomeinist nihilist. Realism is not without its compliments; its adherents are quite aware that state power, and not global consensus, determines which way the tides of the international system will drift. Credibility rests within the ability to do â€“â€“ and nothing more. But where these proponents of realism falter is on the issue of stability.

We need look no further than the proposals of James Baker and his fellow commissionaires of the Iraq Study Group, who are set to wave their magic wand and release their almighty recommendations soon. In the spirit of the preemption they so abhor, I found it prudent to do all the prejudging of their conclusions President Bush swears he will not do. Until their report is out in full text, there is only so much to challenge and discredit. But apparently it will be bifurcated into two pieces: Redeploy and Contain and Stability First. The former is a fruit basket of euphemisms indistinguishable from Mr. Murtha's suggestion of "redeploying" to areas where there apparently isn't any adversary to kill. It should be promptly disregarded. The latter, and far more telling piece, asserts the United States "should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory." What would this "political accommodation" that nixes victory entail? It would mean quite ignobly retracting all of our attempts at Mesopotamian democratization. This is idealistic and messy, they say. Democracy is destabilizing. The stability-scoundrels want insurrectionists of all stripes to join the Iraqi government in the belief that, if given power, they would use that responsibility not to plunder but to mature into well-greased and subservient stabilizers.

It appears their only interests are those of which are most shortsighted and dishonorable. Have we not realized the lunacy in using a fascist Iraq against a fascist Iran, or vice versa? Are we unaware that regimes we oppose house populations that love us, whereas the tyrannies we coddle house peoples that kill us? Have we not learned our lesson by including warlord Muqtada al Sadr into the political fray? And what of Hezbollah, where its theocratic ministers resign the democratic parliament and its sheikh leader promises a new, better, "cleaner" Lebanese government? Those who promulgate the notion that the likes of Hamas are better in power than "in the street" - Dr. Rice sadly amongst this crowd - are talking a dangerous tune in which the United States, for the sake of "regional stability," ought to oversee the empowerment of sadist and fascistic political blocs with jihadist armed wings to ascertain control of the state. The idea that unity parliaments must incorporate poisonous authoritarians antithetical to unity and parliamentarianism is, in essence, suggesting we hand over strategic attainment over to those we would otherwise annihilate and embarrass on a tactical level. Should we hope al Qaida dissects itself into a political organization with which we could parley?

But the Iraq Study Group will not stop there in its faux genius. Not only should the United States forgo democracy promotion and include terrorist movements into governments we seek to build and enhance, but, as its member Bob Gates advises, we should begin talking directly with Khamenei and his mullahs in Tehran, along with the Assad family mafiosos in Damascus. And for what end? Stability, of course. Forget about finding and linking our policies with the interests of Iranian and Syrian dissidents. Just as an unhelpful Charles Percy blasted Solidarity for going - too far - in its effort to rid their Polish countrymen of Soviet domination, so too many policymakers in Washington today view the Arab and Persian democrat with deep distrust and suspicion, while seeking to Arafatize every unmentionable and illegitimate thug and criminal in the region. One offers the uneasiness of constitutional change; the other cold-steel assuredness. "Just pump oil, keep the Commies out, and do whatever else you want."

Perhaps this explains why Ahmed Chalabi is as villianized within some Washington circles as Saddam Hussein. Perhaps this is why 2004 presidential hopefuls chastised Iyad Allawi, while members of Congress shunned Nouri Maliki this past year. The false premise contends there are few Middle Easterners akin to Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and Natan Sharansky. And when such men and women in the Middle East show their faces and speak out - Farid Ghadry, Mithal al Alusi, Amir Abbas Fakhravar, Ayman Nour, Kianoosh Sanjari, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others - they are ridiculed in the West as puppets, surrogates, and Western stooges detached from popular opinion in their theocratic and autocratic home states. Rather than embrace calls for introspection in the Arab world, liberalization, the opening up of ideas and economies, joining globalization, women's rights, and religious and ethnic tolerance, such democratic dissidents are viewed as obstacles to regional stability. They seek a revision of the present warped status quo, and therefore, as with Eastern Europeans who fought for freedom two decades ago, many in Washington render anyone in the Middle East who wants to topple their tyrannical oppressor as a radical revolutionary undermining our negotiations with that very same oppressor.

The realists have it all wrong. This policy was tried for decades on end and it resulted in scenarios where the only prominent opposition to a secular dictator came in the form of even worse religiously fanatical masses. Look for a moment at Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood and likeminded Salafists are the main resistance to Mubarak's rule. Look at the Jordanian kingship, where its people tended to sympathize with Abu al Zarqawi before he started blowing them up. Look at Kuwait - a nation that was liberated by the United States and subsequently ethnically cleansed all Palestinian nomads - where its people polled the highest anti-American sentiment in the region. Look at the Saudi royal family, which brainwash and indoctrinate their youth in systematic fashion in order to get them hating our liberalism just a little bit more than they hate their lack of significance.

Not only must we not talk to our enemies - just ask Sharansky how much he and his fellow dungeon dissidents preferred Reagan's unapologetic and open moralism to Nixon's detente - but we must become increasingly suspicious of our once-cherished Arab allies. Dwight Eisenhower once remarked that if one could not solve a problem, he would be wise to enlarge it. The solution to our current quandary in the Mideast is not a reversal and return to the old order, but to rile up a few more hornet nests. We are engaged in an audacious counterinsurgency across hostile Sunni municipalities with hundreds of thousands of indigenous Iraqi allies at our side. If we were to accept any of the ridiculous Vietnam comparisons, at least let us acknowledge that we have not only toppled the adversarial government (which was not done then), but we have also, wisely, skipped the half-decade as loner and have moved on to contemporary Vietnamization.

Keeping the historical analogies alive, if this is in fact the decades-long struggle we are told it is, and victory, as only a determined few define it, rests not only with the capture of specific terrorists or with the continued prevention of domestic attack, but with the transformation of an undemocratic, self-righteously puritanical, and intolerantly hierarchical part of the planet, then let us not embrace a new detente. George Bush Sr., the stone-cold pragmatist, should creep out anyone who champions the promotion of human freedom. Like his associates, the so-called "wise men" from Powell to Baker, Bush the elder served the United States with credit and as he saw fit, in service and in government. But as he saw fit - as Baker, Gates, and that gang see fit - is wrong.

We must never forget their keeping Hussein in power, or their reinstalling of the Kuwaiti thugocracy, or their assurances to the Iraqi people they would receive American assistance in the event of an uprising - and then their ensuing butchery when the aid they believed we would provide never showed up. We must never forget their golfing with loon tyrants and crass despots for the sake of dictatorial constancy. We should not forget Scowcroft apologizing for Wahhabism, or his lunching with the slaughterers of Tiananmen to "avoid isolating China." We must never forget their nonchalance as the Berlin Wall fell, or their attempts to preserve the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and continued existence of the Soviet Union. We should not overlook their aversion to change - democratic change, above all.

I am under no delusion. We may have to work with certain autocracies for immediate purposes. But these relationships must have the precondition of liberalizing, or, in the least, abiding by human rights and the cessation of blatantly false anti-American indoctrination. But mini-genocides unabated, and the theory of playing an Uday Hussein (who throws babies into wood-chippers) against a mullah (who bombs Argentinean skyscrapers) is not an untarnished past. Democracy movements abandoned, genuine allies and admirers of the United States left to fend for themselves; this is not the moral or intellectual compass I want to follow for how to appropriately wage this war. However more "nuanced" than the "simplicity" of calling a spade a spade, the record of these reviving realists is not only morally ambiguous, but strategically suicidal. This neurosis, our obsession with stability, our admiration for a subservient totalitarian, got us here.

The British diplomatist of whom I am studying, Sir Harold Nicolson, did not believe the Cold War would end at the bargaining table but within the gulags and dungeons behind the Iron Curtain. His bold and early prediction - "The West in the end will be rescued by the heretics of the East" - was in fact correct, but only after the West abandoned coexistence with the Soviets and sought their internal overthrow. We would be wise to replicate our vindicated Western predecessors. Forcing our enemies to incorporate themselves into illiberal democracies they want no part of, in the attempt to cease bloodshed, is not going to work. Negotiating with those who aid the irregulars killing our servicemen is foolish and undercutting. Relying on the supposed brilliance of a hastily assembled commission full of old and discredited men, who have been out of government for over a decade, is absurd. Bringing in an heir of these men to run the Department of Defense is unsettling. In the end, this is not about stability but instability -unpredictably and without warning perpetrating instability, and destabilizing everything and everyone that deserves to be destabilized.

Nicholas M. Guariglia writes on the issues of national defense and counterterrorism, specifically regarding Middle East geopolitics. He is a student at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, where he is studying American foreign policy. He can be contacted at nickguar@comcast.net

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush strongly condemned the assassination of Lebanese Christian Cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel Tuesday and called for a full investigation into his death.

Speaking to U.S. troops stationed in Hawaii, he said the investigation should "identify those people and those forces behind the killing."

Gemayel, an outspoken critic of Syria, was gunned down near Beirut Tuesday as his convoy drove through a Christian neighborhood. (Watch the bullet holes in his car -- 2:10)

A senior U.S. official said the United States views the assassination of Lebanese Christian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel as an "act of terrorism."

"This is a very sad day for Lebanon. We were shocked by this assassination. We view it as an act of terrorism and we also view it as an act of intimidation," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. Watch how Gemayel's killing caps a political meltdown in the government -- 4:10

Burns said all nations should rally around the embattled government of Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to oppose those who were trying to divide Lebanon.

"We think it is very, very important that those who would divide Lebanon and use violence to destabilize the political situation not be able to succeed," Burns said.

"We will give full support to the Siniora government in the days and weeks ahead, to support that government, to support its continuation."

The United States has in recent weeks raised the alarm over the increased threat of assassination of Lebanon's political leaders and called for international support for Siniora.

Gemayel's killing is certain to deepen a political crisis pitting the Lebanese government's anti-Syrian majority against the pro-Damascus opposition led by Hezbollah, which fought a five-week war with Israel in July and August.

To So Called Realist Appeasers Who Do Not See The Difference Between Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran and Communist China ....

FREE Society, Human Rights, Secular Democracy movements in Iran abandoned, genuine allies and admirers of the United States left to fend for themselves; this is not the moral or intellectual compass we should follow to please EU3, China, Russia Neo Colonialists and Saudi Arabia if USA wish to be a progressive Super Power.
1. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.

2. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
3. The Administration must abandon its failed policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately. The War on Terror can not be fought in serial and slowly ....
4. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
5- We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran. The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

UN must expel Ahmadinejad's murderous regime, says one of the world's leading moral voices.

Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive. What remains in human memory as the most cruel of conflicts changed neither human nature nor peoples' ambition. Religious wars, political dictatorships, ethnic clashes, sectarian, cultural and economic crises: Their impact affects us all pretty much everywhere on the planet. Our world is still the target of more than one threat. Such is life, that everything comes full circle to start over again.

Yet even in the domain of evil, differences and degrees exist. Certain dictators are worse than others, and their hateful actions have consequences more dangerous.

For the reader who has not yet guessed, I am speaking of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: More than so many others who abuse their position if not their power, this one represents the darkest of political action.

Ridiculing historical truths, offending the memory of survivors still alive, he glorifies the act of lying: As the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world, an anti-Semite with a disturbed mind, he claims that Hitler's "Final Solution" never happened. He even had a large international exhibition of anti-Holocaust cartoons mounted in Tehran. Several hundred cartoonists participated. When asked about the future, the exhibition organizer states that the project will continue as long as the Jewish state has not been destroyed.

And who will destroy it? On this point, President Ahmadinejad is not afraid to clarify his view: Iran will take the lead. As soon as this Muslim country has acquired a nuclear weapon, the first bombs will be launched on Israel. And he has not ceased to repeat this threat.

Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.

And lest we forget, who is behind the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Iran. Iran sends them the most modern weapons and officers to train their soldiers. But what does Hezbollah want? Territorial concessions? No. The creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state? No. The sole objective of this movement - and of the Iranian president - is the destruction of Israel.

This is why I maintain that such a figure does not have a place within the community of international leaders. Persona non grata, an undesirable individual, this is what he should become, because of what he is doing to his country, to his people, to all of humanity. This is why he deserves to be turned away everywhere. I'll go even further: The country he leads and embodies should be excluded from the United Nations as long as he is its ruler and symbol. On what grounds? It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.

Is something like this possible? I am not naive enough to believe that this could really happen. What state would introduce such a UN resolution? And how many delegates would vote to adopt it? I know all too well: very few. But at least they won't feel so comfortable in their fear. At least they'll learn from lessons of the not-so-distant past: We know with whom a dictator will begin; but he will not stop there. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, do we really think that Israel would remain its only target?

Some will say: What about North Korea? Why aren't we doing something about them? Don't they have the same atomic ambitions? Yes, they do. But there is still quite a difference. North Korea has never threatened to wipe away another state. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, is author of "Night" and winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. This article, written for the Daily News, was translated from the French by Jamie Moore.

This is a paragraph taken from Zucker’s article, which blank posted in another thread.

Quote:

Update on Dr. Vali Reza Nasr: Baztab, the VEVAK website, carried an article by former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC/Pasdaran) chief Mohsen Rezai (now Secretary of the IRI's State Expediency Council) on October 26, 2006 praising Nasr's rise to prominence as an expert on Shiite political power. The article notes that both Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have met with Nasr, but that Nasr's advice that the US should accept Iran as a regional power, and start negotiations and come to terms with Iran's leaders has not yet been accepted as yet. Rezai calls Nasr's policy recommendations as "realistic and inclusive" as they accord the Shiites more power, as opposed to Orientalist Bernard Lewis' approach that gave greater control to the Sunni with hopes to democratize Iraq and the region. Rezai's article has disappeared from Baztab in the last few days, but it seems that he feels Vali Nasr is doing a good job. Given Rezai's background and his current position in the regime, we should wonder why Nasr is receiving his approval. Looks like Vali is telling it just like Tehran wants it told.

You will recall earlier posts of mine refuting Nasr’s article.

It seems that my original suspicion that he is their lackey is essentially confirmed._________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

As far as I can tell, all the mullah's men and all the pundits in favor of negotiation have yet to effect US foreign policy.

The attitude I see from my government is that we don't need to negotiate with Iran to get them to do the right thing....they know what they need to do if they have the desire to have a constructive relationship, and no one in the US gov. sees that happening at this point.

Nor should, in the minds of both Mr. Bush and the Iraqi leadership, the US negotiate what is essentially the soverign government of Iraq's responsibility to negotiate in terms of Iraqi security and its relationship with Iran.

It is of course somewhat entertaining to see how hard the IRI tries to affect policy(including Antar's letter to the American people) to no avail....

It smacks of desperation if you ask me....

Folks, please do trust that both the Bush admin and the American people have a real good center of gravity....as they say...if it walks like a duck...sounds like a duck....and looks like a duck.....

Reject Iraq Study Group Shameful Détente With Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, Study Group Does Not See The Difference Between Islamic Fascists and Communist China, Russia ....

Quote:

Excerpts of Iraq Study Group reporthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_excerpts
"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
As part of the diplomatic initiative, direct talks must be held between the United States and Iran, as well as Syria, according to the bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. (View the complete report -- PDF)

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton wrote:

"If we don't talk to them, we don't see much progress being made," Hamilton said in presenting the report. "You can't look at this part of the world and pick and choose which countries you're going to deal with."

The Iraq Study Group has not learned any lesson from their own past 27 years mistakes regarding creation of Islamic Republic of Iran, Al-Qaeda, and September 11 . The Islamist followers are against FREE Society, Human Rights, and Secular Democracy. TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH STOPPING TO APPEASE MULLAHS, REAL SUPPORT FOR ISLAMIC FASCISTS REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREE IRAN, FREE SOCIETY & SECULAR DEMOCRACY. The Iraq Study Group instead of asking president Bush to support Regime Change are asking for Shameful Détente With Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, what a joke!

FREE Society, Human Rights, Secular Democracy movements in Iran abandoned, genuine allies and admirers of the United States left to fend for themselves; this is not the moral or intellectual compass we should follow to please EU3, China, Russia Neo Colonialists and Saudi Arabia if USA wish to be a progressive Super Power and liberator.

Quote:

v. The prospect of a U.S. policy that emphasizes political and economic reforms instead of (as Iran now perceives it) advocating
regime change.

1. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.

2. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
3. The Administration must abandon its failed policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately. The War on Terror can not be fought in serial and slowly ....
4. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
5- We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran. The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

Realism is an academic theory that holds that nations should, and typically do, conduct foreign policy with greater regard for their interests than their values. But realism is also an ordinary word that tells us that good sense and experience are better practical guides to action than theory. That's a distinction worth bearing in mind as the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group releases its report this week and we debate whether the U.S. should engage diplomatically with Iran.

To hear the so-called realists tell it, engaging Tehran is a matter of necessity and ought to be one of choice. Necessity, they say, because there will be no good outcome in Iraq--or Lebanon and Palestine--without Iranian acquiescence, which can only be achieved through face-to-face talks and confidence-building measures. Necessity, too, because they think that neither the U.S. nor Israel can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions militarily and so they must be dealt with as part of a broader negotiation.

Yet the same people who now call for engagement also believed in it long before the invasion of Iraq or the recent revelations about Iran's nuclear advances. They argue that Iran's pressing political and economic problems--the country's huge youth cohort, cleavages within the regime and its loss of popular legitimacy, ethnic and labor unrest and growing unemployment--mean the Islamic Republic has reasons of its own to come to the table. The same logic also suggests that the real purpose of its nuclear program is to serve as a bargaining chip to obtain bigger concessions from the West rather than as an end in itself.

But here's where realism of the common sense kind should intrude. Iran's domestic problems are hardly new and in some ways have been eased by the high oil prices of recent years. In 1997, Iranians "elected" a supposedly moderate president, Mohammed Khatami, on a reformist platform. As Iranian journalist Amir Taheri notes in the November Commentary magazine, the Clinton Administration sought to establish openings with the Khatami government by lifting some sanctions and apologizing for U.S. political meddling. President Clinton even planned an "accidental" encounter with Mr. Khatami during the U.N.'s millennium summit, but Iran's Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei canceled it at the last minute. The stood-up President "was left pacing the corridors of the U.N.," writes Mr. Taheri.
Presidents Carter and Reagan earlier tried engagement with the Ayatollah Khomeini, each time with disastrous consequences: the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in 1979; the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986. One problem is that however sincere Iranian moderates may be in seeking an accommodation with the West, Iranian hardliners have proved equally intent on torpedoing any deals. The hardliners have consistently held the upper hand.

This point should be obvious now that Mr. Khatami has been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Much has been said about Mr. Ahmadinejad's election being a victory for populism over clericalism. But his candidacy was promoted by Supreme Guide Khamenei and a clerical establishment that pre-selects its officeholders according to narrow ideological and religious criteria.

In Mr. Ahmadinejad, they found a man whose wipe-Israel-off-the-map rhetoric is matched by his record as a hostage-taker, prison interrogator and organizer of violent domestic paramilitaries. If the "realists" greeted Mr. Khatami's election as a sign of regime softening, why then do they not draw opposite conclusions about his successor?

The Bush Administration has also tried diplomacy, agreeing to allow the Europeans--hardly the most truculent negotiators, except on Guantanamo--to take the lead on the nuclear issue. In late 2003, Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear work as a confidence-building measure; within months, they were caught cheating. A second go-around a year later led to the same result, with Tehran dismissing a package of incentives that included security guarantees, technical assistance, commercial ties and prospective membership in the World Trade Organization.

An effort to get Iran to agree to have Russia enrich its uranium was negotiated for months and led nowhere. Iran has consistently misled U.N. inspectors and illegally obstructed their work by denying them multiple-entry visas. It has flouted the Security Council's August 31 deadline to cease enriching uranium, choosing instead to expand its enrichment work while pursuing other nuclear programs such as a heavy water plant at Arak that has few possible non-military uses.

The deeper issue concerns Iran's strategic ambitions. "Realists" argue that despite the regime's avowed revolutionary principles, what it really seeks is to become a status quo power, secure in its neighborhood and linked to the wider world.

Even assuming Iran's ambitions extend only to the region, its unneighborly behavior belies this hope. Iranian agents were almost certainly responsible for the 1996 murders of 19 U.S. servicemen in Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah waged its summer war against Israel using arms supplied by Tehran; those arms may yet be turned on the Lebanese government.

Both Britain and the U.S. have publicly accused Iran of supplying increasingly sophisticated improvised explosive devices to anti-Coalition forces in Iraq; IEDs are the leading cause of U.S. military deaths. Now Iran says that a swift American withdrawal from Iraq is the key to peace. That may be music to the ears of Western critics of the war. But it's hardly surprising given that the U.S. is what chiefly stands in the way of Iran's desire to dominate Iraq through the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army is responsible for some of the worst sectarian violence.

Iran actively supports more than a dozen Parties of God (a k a Hezb Allah) in places as faraway as Paraguay and Argentina. Asian regional powers such as India and Pakistan have not sought the long-range ballistic missiles as Iran has through its Shihabs, which can now reach parts of Europe. Whereas India and Pakistan have deployed modest nuclear arsenals adequate to defend against each other, the scope of Iran's enrichment program suggests a desire to construct scores of bombs a year.

Finally, there is the matter of values. One has to wonder about "engaging" a regime whose recent domestic practices include taking a razor to the tongue of labor leader Mansour Ossanloo, whose crime was to have organized an independent union for bus drivers. Realists would have us believe that a country that indulges such barbarism can still be expected to act as a predictable and, under certain conditions, reliable partner in diplomacy.
It's true that we also "engaged" the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but most successfully when Ronald Reagan also spoke candidly about Soviet reality and on behalf of Russian freedom and the U.S. resisted the Kremlin's global designs. We suppose in that sense the Gipper was an idealistic realist. President Bush has spoken repeatedly, in his major speeches and in interviews, about American support for Iranians who aspire to more freedom, which is one reason the U.S. is popular among the Iranian people. What message would it now send those Iranians if the U.S. turned around and embraced the rule of Tehran's mullahs?

We think it's simple realism to believe the fate of people like Mr. Ossanloo explains Iran's past behavior, and well predicts its future.

Please write, email, protest, call, fax and let them know what you think about Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, Terror and Torture Masters, Murderous Mullah$ who have killed, tortured, and imprisoned thousands of people...... and Reject Appeasing Mullahs ...
YOUR ACTIONS NOW NOW NOW NOW

Today President Bush responded to the just-released Iraq Study Group report, including its recommendation to open talks with Iran and Syria (see below). Bush was receptive to the idea while emphasizing that "victory in Iraq" is important to our security. But with today also being the 65th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, I couldn't help but recall, and be inspired by, an article in the latest Objective Standard that I linked to earlier this week: "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John Lewis. In this excellent, must-read essay, Dr. Lewis compares today's approach to war with that of the 1940s. Here's another excerpt:

In 1945, Americans knew that there was truly "no substitute for victory," as General MacArthur said in his farewell speech to Congress. In 1945, Americans also knew the meaning of "victory." It was not a mere word, empty of content. It named a specific task, and a precise goal. To say that our aim today is "to attain victory" can be as empty and futile as urging a college student to "do well," or a businessman to "succeed." What constitutes "doing well"? What is "success"? How will we know when we have achieved "victory"? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy?
History offers yet another example. The words proclaimed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which defined the terms of victory, and which he held intransigently for over two years, are "Unconditional Surrender." Bringing long-term peace to the world, said FDR,

involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the . . . Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.
In other words, continued FDR:

We have learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of the world, they will multiply and grow in strength . . . [they] must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy which has brought so much suffering to the world.
The term "Unconditional Surrender" has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded "no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender" from his southern foe at Fort Donelson, Kentucky. For this victory, Grant was heroized as "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. To Americans of the time, "U. S." stood for Ulysses S. Grant, for the United States, and for Unconditional Surrender. Americans demanded nothing less than victory, and equated victory with their own identity as a nation.

This is what we must regain today: the sense of ourselves as right to drive victoriously over a viciously evil enemy. We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran--and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth--to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights.

This is just a glimpse of the essay's analysis, so as I urged before: Read the whole thing. And when you do, contrast it to what Bush said today about our enemies. The CNN headline captures the essence: Bush tells Iran, Syria how they can join Iraq talks.

After talks with his top Iraq war ally President Bush on Thursday indicated that Iran and Syria might be included in regional talks about Iraq, if they meet certain conditions. ...
The Iraq Study Group report also called on the United States to hold talks on the war with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, a nation which has not enjoyed diplomatic relations with Washington in the nearly three decades after the Iranian revolution.

"Having an international group is an interesting idea," Bush said.

"We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years," said Bush. "And that is that, if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their [nuclear] enrichment program."

So there's been a "change in U.S. policy." Bush would like us to believe that we nonetheless have Iran on the defensive and that the West has set the terms. But in reality it is Iran that is setting the terms. The Islamic Republic is an openly hostile enemy who is not only pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of numerous agreements but is also actively involved in killing our troops in Iraq -- and yet they have suffered no negative consequences. It is an act of appeasement to even consider talks with Iran because it rewards their past behavior. Iran has set the terms by pursuing whatever policies are in their interest while the West merely reacts with words. Why would Iran suddenly begin to punish themselves for our sake, just because we asked, when their current strategy is working just fine?

Until the Iranian regime is defeated militarily, there can be no meaningful talks. Bush may admit that the situation in Iraq is "bad," but until he admits that Iran is the real source of the problem, the situation will only get worse.

Posted by Forkum at 04:31 PM / Permalink

_______________________________________________

Agree with President Bush not to talk with Islamic Fascist regime. Reject Iraq Study Group Shameful Détente With Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, Study Group Does Not See The Difference Between Islamic Fascists and Communist China, Russia ....
Due to the fact that majority of Iraq Study Group members in past 27 years were partially responsible for appeasing Mullahs and helping them to come to power in Iran therefore they are guilty for many problems we are facing today. The Iraq Study Group does not address the key problem which is ignoring the push for secular democracy, free society, Human Rights for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ..... The Iraq Study Group members or any other US government officials, members of congress can not consider themselves American patriot when they ignore this fundamental principle and value system (Secular Democracy) defined by American founding fathers .... By the way election in Iran,Iraq ... is not considered as democracy ...

--------------------------------------

Rejecting Any Kind of Talks with Islamofascist Based On Moral Clarity Principles and ActivistChat 2006 Guideline

Rejecting U.S. Detente Policy With Any Kind Of Evil Islamofascists (Enemy Of Freedom)

An Unwise U.S. Private Talks with Islamofascists In Iran ?
= U.S. Detente With Any Kind Of Evil Islamofascists ?
= Insults to Freedom-Loving American and Iranian People
= Betrayal Of Freedom
= Betrayal Of Free Society
= Betrayal Of Secular Democracy
= Betrayal Of Human Rights

Lack Of Moral Clarity In US Policy and Strategy is the source of problems in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan . What is Moral Clarity means regarding Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?

1) US should have helped to remove Islamist regime in Iran after regime change in Afghanistan before removing Sadam.
2) US should have pushed for creating Free Society and Secular democracy before setting up election in both Iraq and Afghanistan similar to what US did in west Germany after second world war.
3) US should have considered all Islamic movements and Parties as Islamofascist of some sort and should not allow them to exist under US military occupation.
4) US should not have trusted, supported the EU3 Nuclear Deals with Iran. EU3 appeasement policy is responsible for today security council crisis .
5)

Amir Taheri wrote:

The U.S. decision here may be even worse than a mistake; it may be unnecessary. And, as Talleyrand noted almost 200 years ago, in politics doing something that is not necessary is worse than making a mistake.

6) US should not follow appeasement policy towards China and Russia.

Please write, email, protest, call, fax and let them know what you think about Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran, Terror and Torture Masters, Murderous Mullah$ who have killed, tortured, and imprisoned thousands of people...... and Reject Appeasing Mullahs ...

----------------------------------------------------------

Cyrus wrote:

***********Information To Contact The Iraq Study Group And Reject Them For Ignoring Secular Democracy ....****************

Contact Us
United States Institute of Peace
1200 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone)
(202) 429-6063 (fax)
General Inquiries
Please contact Kuimba Boston in the Office of Public Affairs and Communications at 202-429-4144 or by email at info@usip.org

*******************

The following is a listing, by state, of email addresses of United State Congress members:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican chairman of the Iraq Study Group on Thursday defended the panel's call to seek Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq but conceded he was told recently by Tehran that was unlikely "this time around."

Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told U.S. lawmakers that President George W. Bush had given him permission recently to approach the Iranian government, with which the United States has no diplomatic relations.

"And they, in effect, said, 'we would not be inclined to help you this time around,"' Baker told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, were greeted by senators who questioned the value of inviting Iran to join a regional conference on stabilizing Iraq - a key element of the bipartisan report issued on Wednesday.

The report said the United States should begin to withdraw forces from combat in Iraq and launch a diplomatic push, including Iran and Syria, to prevent a "slide toward chaos."

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), who will head the Armed Services Committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January, said he thought most lawmakers supported the general thrust of the report, if not all its 79 recommendations. Levin, like many Democrats, favors starting a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The outreach to Iran prompted much of the skepticism.

Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) asked whether Iran would not extract an "unacceptable price" -- such as concessions on its nuclear program -- for any help it gives the United States in Iraq.

"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," said Lieberman, a one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate. "They are, after all, supporting (the Islamist militant group) Hezbollah, which gathers people in the square in Beirut to shout "Death to America."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate who has been urging more U.S. troops be sent to Iraq, added: "I don't believe that a peace conference with people who are dedicated to your extinction has much short-term gain."

Baker said the report stated that the issue of Iraq should be kept separate from the nuclear proliferation issue in Iran. The United States says Iran is developing nuclear weapons; Iran says it wants to make fuel for nuclear power plants.

"What do we lose by saying, 'we're getting all of Iraq's neighbors together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they're all about?"' Baker asked.

Later, in a meeting with print reporters, Baker noted that the United States had held talks with Iran as part of an international group seeking to stabilize Afghanistan and hence the current Iraq-related proposal was not suggesting anything the Americans had not already done. [/quote]

Quote:

Bush-Blair split over report's key proposals
President rejects talks with Iran and Syria

George Bush yesterday rejected key recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, revealing important differences with Tony Blair, who embraced the proposals put forward by the US bipartisan commission.
Those differences became clear after the two leaders met at the White House.

President Bush flatly contradicted the ISG's proposal that Iran and Syria be included in regional talks aimed at ending Iraq's worsening civil war. He restated the White House position that talks with Tehran were conditional on the Iranians stopping uranium enrichment, while contacts with Damascus would depend on an end to Syrian destabilisation of Lebanon and a cessation of arms and money flows over the border to Iraqi insurgents.

"We've made that position very clear. And the truth of the matter is that these countries have now got the choice to make," the president said.
"If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy. Just make some decisions that'll lead to peace, not to conflict."

Mr Blair, by contrast, welcomed the regional peace initiative put forward by the ISG, saying only that the basis for those discussions should be acceptance of UN resolutions on Iraq.

But one thing is for certain, when people-- if people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country. And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up.

- Pres. GWBush

-----------

Quote:

And let me come directly to the Iran and Syria point. The issue for me is not a question of being unwilling to sit down with people or not, but the basis upon which we discuss Iraq has got to be clear and it's got to be a basis where we are all standing up for the right principles, which are now endorsed in the United Nations resolutions, in respect of Iraq. In other words, you support the democratic elected government; you do not support sectarians and you do not support, arm or finance terrorists.

Now, the very reason we have problems in parts of Iraq -- and we know this very well down in the south of Iraq -- is that Iran, for example, has been doing that, has been basically arming, financing, supporting terrorism. So we've got to be clear the basis upon which we take this forward. And as I say, it's got to be clear the basis upon which we take this forward. And as I say, it's got to be on the basis of people accepting their responsibilities.

Key Founders and Strategist Of Islamofascist In Past 27 Years Who Helped Creating Islamic Fascists In Middle East

1) British Government and British Secret Service
2) Brzezinski as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
3) President Carter as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
4) France and Germany
5) Khomeni
6) Osma Bin Laden

All the above accused of betraying the cause of liberty and tried to appease tyranny, Islamist Terrorism (September 11 … ) and for not supporting Free Society, Secular Democracy and for Not Defending UN Human Rights Charter Aggressively .

Dears,
This is a blunt warning. Be ware the disaster may indeed come & soon!?
Hashem==================================================
December 8.2006
Jews, Wake Up!
By Caroline B. Glick

When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war was reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability and at the expense of America's allies.

Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world - Iran and Syria -- in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.

Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.

The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to handover the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.

Although Baker - and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month - believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, that fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.

Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran; empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program; and forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to Syria and Iran's proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.

Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran - whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US - may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.

Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs - not just one.

Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, ten cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.

It is particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March - just four months away.

Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Other maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October in which Iranian officials participated, was a failure.

But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal. Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.

Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.

What must Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's Advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.

The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country - Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians - that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Everyday there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces. Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel, operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.

Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.

With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders.

Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Tragically, in these perilous times, we are being led by the worst, most incompetent government we have ever had.

Prime Minister Olmert's way of dealing with the Iranian threat is to pretend that it is none of his business. During his visit to the US last month, Olmert abdicated responsibility for safeguarding Israel from nuclear destruction to President Bush. It didn't bother him that Bush didn't accept the responsibility. By mindlessly adhering to non-existent ceasefires with Iranian proxies in Gaza and Lebanon and squawking about peace with them, Olmert continues to behave as if this is someone else's problem.

For her part, reacting to the possibility of national extinction, Education Minister Yuli Tamir this week cocked her pedagogical pistol and shot at her rear. By ordering the public schools to demarcate the 1949 armistice lines on the official maps and so wipe Israel off maps of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, Tamir worked to divide the nation over second order issues at a time when unity of purpose is most essential. Olmert, who refused to overturn her scandalous decree, was doubtlessly pleased with her political stunt. For two days the media devoted itself entirely to stirring up internal divisions and so ignored the threat hanging over our heads and Olmert's refusal to deal with it.

Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Malcolm Honlein, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.

In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.

Our struggle for survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear. Either the Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations are destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is now leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will defend us.

America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately.